Total Pageviews

Monday, 26 December 2016

Prisoners riot and protest for the same reason anyone else does: because they are not being heard. In the past two months riots have swept through five prisons, inmates have sawed their way out of their cells to escape and one prisoner has been stabbed to death.

Our prisons are in desperate, heart-breaking crisis and the disturbance at HMP Swaleside last night was yet another act of desperation from prisoners who feel they have no voice. We need to stop pointing fingers and start listening before any more violence takes hold.

As a criminal barrister I have worked with many prisoners and represented those serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences at Parole Board hearings. They tell me how few prisons provide for their basic hygiene needs, how poor the food is, and how they do not have access to the rehabilitative courses they are required to go on. They are incarcerated, but they are still human and they still have the same basic needs as everyone else, and they have the right to be treated as such. Our prison service has become so stretched it is at breaking point and we are failing to meet the most basic of prisoners’ needs; let alone assist in their rehabilitation. How then can we expect them to do anything but protest?

Government cuts and privatisation have seen the number of prison officers in the UK fall as the prison population grows and outbreaks of violence and insecurity are the inevitable result. In the last year, the number of assaults in prisons has risen by one third, while those on staff have gone up by 40 per cent. The rise in self-inflicted deaths was up almost one third and self-harm has increased by 27 per cent. These injuries and deaths are often preventable and highlight the inadequacies in mental health and information gathering that takes place. Inmates and staff are dangerously vulnerable and never has the argument for bringing the prison service back into public hands been stronger. Privatisation is once again failing those who are the most at risk.

Just one week ago the worst riot in a British prison in a decade gripped HMP Birmingham as 600 inmates took control of a wing for 12 hours, resulting in one prisoner being taken to hospital. In response Liz Truss, the Justice Secretary, said those responsible “will face the full force of the law”. This statement gives away Truss’ utter failure to grasp the problem and a lack of insight into the reasons behind the crisis. If we are serious about addressing the problems facing our gaols we must reduce the number of people in them. Increasing custodial sentences for those who commit infractions in prison is only making the problem worse: instead we should be asking why those inmates took the action they did in the first place.

Advertisement

- ADVERTISEMENT -

Our aim should be to close prisons because there is so little demand for them, as is happening in the Netherlands. On top of ending threats to lengthen the sentences of inmates who riot, we must urgently work to release prisoners serving IPP sentences, many of whom have served many months or years longer than their minimum term. It is utterly unjust and unjustifiable that almost APROX 4,000 people are still trapped in prison beyond their release date, many of whom committed crimes attracting very low sentences in the first place. The Government’s failure to act is responsible for people’s lives being wasted behind bars. There is no excuse for continuing to detain people who have served their time, four years after IPP sentences were abolished.

The most important task we face is to address why people end up in prison in the first place. The failed model of short prison sentences should be scrapped immediately and replaced with community rehabilitation, reducing the strain on prisons, administering community based punishments whilst also equipping often vulnerable people with the life skills they so desperately need to prevent reoffending. Of course in cases of serious offending prison is the appropriate punishment, however in cases of less serious offending, prison is rarely the place that positive change can take place. It is also of fundamental importance to recognise that we need to invest in education and tackle poverty and inequality. Prevention is, of course, better than cure.

Toner Just had a phone call from my son who is in HMP Chelmsford. The prison is on lock down. The prison officers are letting a few out at a time to make phone calls. Very sadly a young lad couldn't fight his demons any longer & took his own life last night. Heart breaking news. My thoughts go out to his family. Take 2 minutes of your time today to spare a thought for all the poor souls trapped in the system whilst fighting their own demons but also for the many poor souls who have lost their battle.

UmmSo so sad I've got a tear in my eyes.. I remember but my oh called me told me a lad hang himself and loss his hope after he went to parole and got refused release he was a IPP like mine is but he was heartbroken this system needs to sort it out to many are losing hope not fair at all.. My oh wasn't even their that long he was shipped their after a, week of being their he had this experience xx.. He was so upset they don't see how it affect everyone inside and out xx

GleesonA mother rang me tonight ,i just want to end it all, the pain its to much , how much more

Tuesday, 20 December 2016

On 13 November 2012, Shaun Docherty was convicted of wounding
with intent. On 20 December 2012, he was sentenced to ‘imprisonment for public
protection’ (IPP), even though the Government had, from 3 December 2012,
abolished IPP sentences for some people…

Jargon buster – ‘convicted’, ‘sentenced’ and ‘IPP’

If someone is ‘convicted‘ of a crime, it means they have
pleaded or been found guilty of that crime. A ‘sentence‘ is the
punishment someone gets after they have been convicted.

Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection
(IPP) were designed
to ensure that offenders (whose crimes did not
warrant a life sentence) could be kept in prison for as long as they presented
a risk to society. A sentencing judge would impose a ‘tariff’ – a minimum
time the person had to serve before they could be considered by the Parole
Board for release.

IPP sentences came under heavy
criticism. Less serious offenders were given very short tariffs but kept in
prison long after their tariffs expired. The prison system could not give
IPP prisoners access to rehabilitative resources so that they could
demonstrate they were no longer a risk to society. IPP sentences also
contributed to prison overcrowding.

In 2012, the Coalition Government decided
to abolish IPP sentences. This was accomplished through the Legal Aid,
Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). The dates are
important here – for offenders convicted of a crime on or after 3 December
2012, courts were no longer able to impose IPP sentences. But
importantly, prisoners already convicted could still be sentenced to
IPP. There would be a ‘phased introduction’ of a new preventive detention
scheme. But Mr. Docherty, having been convicted before 3 December 2012 (in
November 2012), could still be sentenced to IPP, and was so sentenced on
20 December 2012.

Mr. Docherty went to the UK Supreme Court, arguing that his
IPP sentence infringed his rights under Article 7
of the European Convention on Human Rights.

How does this affect human rights?

Article 7
of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) covers a few things – for
example, that no one should be found guilty of something that was not
a crime at the time they did it, even if it later becomes a crime (no
retrospective criminalisation), and, if someone does commit a crime, they
should not be given a heavier penalty than the one which was applicable at the
time they committed the crime (no retrospective harsher punishment).

The European Court of Human Rights has said (in a case called
Scoppola v Italy (Number 2))
that Article
7 ECHR “guarantees not only the… non-retrospectiveness of more stringent
criminal laws but also retrospectiveness of more lenient criminal law”. This
means that, where a more lenient sentencing law is later enacted, a court
should apply the more lenient law even if it did not exist at the time the
person committed the offence.

A general principle of general international law, known
as ‘lex mitior’, is also relevant here. It says that when there is a change of
law before the final judgment in a criminal case, the law most favourable to
the person being prosecuted, convicted or sentenced shall apply (Article
24(2) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court).

Mr. Docherty argued that his IPP sentence was incompatible
with Article 7 ECHR (particularly the principle of retrospectiveness of more
lenient criminal law, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights) and
the international law principle of ‘lex mitior’, since there was a new,
more lenient sentencing scheme available under LASPO.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court did not accept Mr. Docherty’s
argument. It said that the phased introduction of the new sentencing
scheme was legitimate, and that Mr. Docherty’s claim was an attempt to
‘anticipate’ the change.

It was incorrect to say that the law – in Mr. Docherty’s
case – had ‘changed’; the law had only changed (become more lenient) for those
convicted after 3 December 2012, but not for those convicted before. The
law prevailing at the time Mr. Docherty was sentenced said that IPP could be
imposed against those convicted before 3 December 2012, meaning that ‘lex
mitior’ had not been infringed.

The Supreme Court also looked at the European Court of Human
Rights’ decision in Scoppola.
The European Court had said that the principle of retrospectiveness
of the more lenient criminal law was embodied within ‘lex mitior’ – the rule
that, where there were differences between the criminal law at the time of the
offence and subsequent criminal laws enacted before a final judgment was given,
the court had to apply the law most favourable to the person accused or convicted.

The Supreme Court said that this ‘extended rule’ appeared not
to be within the rationale for ‘lex mitior’ and would have ‘unwarranted
consequences’. The Supreme Court concluded that the European Court’s extended
concept of the principle ‘should, with great respect, not be applied’.

Topical questions in the House of
Commons

Our
probation officers do a vital job—it is one that I value highly—in turning
offenders’ lives around, and the prisons and probation Minister
is conducting a comprehensive review of the probation system that is focused on
improving the quality of our probation services. As with our plans for prisons,
we want a simpler, clearer system, with specific outcome measures such as
getting offenders off drugs, improving educational standards, and getting
offenders into apprenticeships and work. We also want closer working with the
Prison Service. We will set out our more detailed plans after our review is
completed in April.

We are
working to ensure that we take proper account of the specific needs of women at
every stage of the criminal justice system so that they receive the support
that they need to make positive changes in their lives. We want to see fewer
women offending and reoffending, and we will set out our strategy for how we
manage female offenders in 2017.

May I
give the Secretary of
State another opportunity to answer my question? She told the House
that she has had meetings to discuss the record levels of suicide in our
prisons. Has she actually visited a prison mental health service—and if not,
why not?

There is
obviously a careful risk assessment before people are moved into open prison. I
am not aware of the specific facts of the case that the hon. Gentleman has
outlined, but I will be happy to meet him to discuss it.

Prisoners
serving IPP—imprisonment for
public protection—sentences have remained in custody long beyond their tariff
and long after the coalition Government abolished such sentences. I understand
that a dedicated Ministry of Justice unit is looking into the position of IPP
prisoners. Will the Secretary of
State tell us exactly what it is doing?

I can
assure my hon. Friend that we are working urgently with the governor to address
the situation, as well as addressing the overall issue of the number of
suicides in our prisons, which is far too high.

Reoffending
rates among young offenders remain stubbornly high. Earlier this year, the
Association of Youth Offending Team Managers said that there had been a record
cut in funding for youth offending teams. What is the Secretary of
State doing to address that?

“If you are black you are treated more harshly by the criminal
justice system than if you are white.”

I am pleased to be working with Mr Lammy
on a review of the treatment of, and outcomes for, black, Asian and minority
ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system. What steps will the Secretary of State
take to act on the emerging findings, which show that, in respect of arrests
and charging, such people are disproportionately affected?

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has joined that review, to which I am
sure that she will make a major contribution. Clearly there are issues
throughout the criminal justice system that we need to examine, but I am
certainly keen to see more diversity throughout our legal services industry and
our judiciary, and we are working very hard on that.

Given the Government’s welcome development of a
corruption prevention strategy for our prisons, will the Minister
look personally at the allegations of systemic corruption raised by BuzzFeed
News today on the basis that this presents a serious risk of undermining our
prison system?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. While the vast majority
of prison officers are hard-working and dedicated, there is a small minority
that is an issue. We acknowledge that in the White Paper,
and we are reporting early next year on our corruption strategy. We are also
considering options for a prison-specific offence of corruption to crack down
on that scourge.

When the
previous Labour
Government changed the law so that prisoners had to be released
halfway through their sentence irrespective of how badly they behaved or if
they were still a risk to the public, the then Conservative Opposition
were apoplectic and voted against the change. Do the Government think that the
then Conservative party was wrong to oppose that change in the law?

I think
this show will run—probably for some years to come. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-12-06b.110.7

IPP sentence is a life sentence also
given to the vulnerable those with disability’s.

that once in court their lack of understanding grows
as their lives are taken over by opaque court procedures and legalistic
terminology, and in prison many are left to fend for themselves in a shadowy
world of not quite knowing what is going on around them or what is expected of
them.

In the European court is against
whole-life sentences.It was argued that his very hopelessness made a person dangerous.
"Dr Stephanie Hill, consultant in psychology because having no hope you
having little concern for others in light of his whole-life order this manifests
itself in an assaults others.It me it is total madness to give young people 99 years sentence for minor crimes in comparison to those who commit much worse crimes. To warrant
an IPP you would have to of had to commit 3 similar crimes all though you have punished for
those individual crimes .

“One prisoner quoted in the inside
time,) The IPP is a life sentence but you might as well be dead because I was
given a death sentence. At least if I was dead it would put me out of my
misery.”

The whole-life tariff is against
all principles of international law as it denies any possibility of reform of
rehabilitation.

Whole-life jail sentences without any prospect of release
amount to inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, the European court
of human rights has ruled. In its decision, the Strasbourg court said there
had been a violation of article 3 of the European convention on human rights,
which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment. The judgment said: "For a
life sentence to remain compatible with article 3 there had to be both a possibility
of release and a possibility of review."

Thousands were sentenced to an IPP most are over tariff some by 3 times there original date.
This would effect and take down the best of people and affect their mental state.

Mental ill-health is one of the
most predominant and challenging issues in prisons this is closely associated
with the unacceptably high rates of suicide and self-harm in custody. Government
have got to its highest ever this year, prisoner had been identified as having
mental health needs before their death. A high proportion of the Prison population
has mental health needs these needs range from mild high forms of depression
this can be treated with medication and support.But only if staff can be more sympathetic to prisoners when
prisoners are taking medication that their behaviour could change as a result.

A report in 2015 by the prison
reform trust contained 82 recommendations (Department of Health, 2009), and
most of these are being taken forward – including my recommendation for a
nationwide liaison and diversion service.

So why do we have a crises? Should we be asking for a investigation into the government
mishandling ?Who takes that on?

Death have been
rising at a alarming rate, who is responsibility for 32 deaths
this year 2016)?

It is essential is for all prison
staff to be educated to recognise hidden disabilities those groups more at risk and to understand the symptoms of mental
ill-health subsequently they those care and support. Staff training is,
therefore is crucial but, too often I
read , these investigations have found that staff lacked the necessary
mental health awareness training, therefore, the mental health needs of
prisoners were neglected because signs were missed.

Prison staff needs to work
together to develop an effective plan of care and to deliver appropriate
treatment, and support so that they may be able to overcome their mental health
difficulties, at least learn to manage. Unfortunately, mental health conditions
cause sufferers to present difficult and challenging behaviour, which staff may
deal with as a behavioural rather than a mental health problem.

"Learning disorders are born
due to poor functioning of the brain and can influence the individual mental
processes such as word recognition, memory, reading comprehension, auditory
language processing and mathematical analysis. Learning disorders can also be
associated with different types of ADHD, behavioural disorders and sensory
disabilities.

Prison and probation staff was
failing to identify people with learning disabilities, meaning opportunities to
help those offenders were missed, according to independent inspectors. Today
they published the second report of a joint inspection into people with
learning disabilities within the criminal justice system.

The report, A joint inspection of
the treatment of offenders with learning disabilities within the criminal
justice system: phase two in custody and the community, reflects the findings
of HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Prisons. The first
inspection, published in January 2014, looked at what happened when someone is
arrested and in police custody through to when someone first appears in court
and is sentenced. Inspectors noted the poor quality of services, inefficient
processes and confusion among police, court service and probation staff about
what constituted a learning disability. This second inspection presents an
equally bleak picture about the experience of offenders with learning
disabilities in prison and while subject to supervision in the community.

The first inspection found that
no clear definition or agreement exists across criminal justice and health
organisations about what constitutes learning difficulties or disabilities.
Although believed to be a sizeable minority, possibly as high as 30%, there is
no way of knowing the number of people with such conditions within the criminal
justice system. Adequate provision is, consequently, not always made by the
agencies involved to cater for their specific needs. The second inspection
found that within probation and particularly in prisons, identification of
offenders with learning disabilities remained a problem and as a result, the
needs of people with learning disabilities were often missed.

Inspectors were concerned to
find: Screening tools were not used routinely by probation officers or in prisons,
and there was an over-reliance on disclosure of the existence of learning
disabilities by the offender/prisoner or their family;

practitioners were frustrated by the lack of
support from social and health care agencies;

some prisoners had learning disability nurses
but, generally, offender supervisors did not consult them regularly;

although some initiatives and guidance were
being developed by national and local leaders, frontline staff and some
managers were either unaware or unable to implement it;

and the Equality Act 2010 makes it clear that
public authorities have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to meet the needs
of service users with a disability (including a learning disability), but in
most cases managers and staff in prisons or probation services were not doing
this.

However, inspectors also found
that:

·there were pockets of good practice and examples
of staff developing supportive relationships and ‘going the extra mile’ but
these were the exception, rather than the norm; and

·Offender managers and supervisors working in the
community were keen to receive advice and guidance and those with direct access
to community psychiatric nurses felt supported, however, most community
psychiatric nurses were not trained or experienced in working with people with
learning disabilities.

·The chief inspectors made recommendations for
improvement, which included: ensuring that prison and probation services comply
with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 by making necessary adjustments
to services delivered to those with learning disabilities, introducing a
screening tool across the prison estate for learning disabilities and adapting
interventions for people with learning disabilities to help reduce the risk of re offending.

Chief Inspector of Prisons Nick
Hardwick said on behalf of both inspectorates:

“In prisons we were alarmed that
there were extremely poor systems for identifying prisoners with learning
disabilities; in one prison we were even told that they could not identify a
single prisoner who had a learning disability.

This lack of identification is
unacceptable. Even where a learning disability was identified, it was not
always sufficiently taken into account in prison processes such as behaviour
management or anti-bullying measures. Not surprisingly therefore, some
prisoners with a learning disability told us about getting into trouble with
staff or being bullied because of their learning disability.

We are also concerned that little
thought was given to the need to adapt the regimes to meet the needs of
prisoners with learning disabilities who may find understanding and following
prison routines very difficult. http://www.mac-uk.org/wped/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Dept-of-Health-Bradley-Report-Exec-Summary.pdf

Comments

I
would like to thank everyone who helped me with my book Prisoners in
Limbo and I do hope those in Authority will take note of what the book
contains.
I want to say to each and everyone of you who have
loved ones locked up that you will get your loved ones out and you must
stay positive. If there is anything I can do to help the cause sign
petitions, letter then please let me know.
Although I was not an IPP prisoner I was given a life sentence at the age of 19 and was released
when I was 32 so I know the road ahead is not plain sailing however
change is going to come and you will be reunited with your loved ones.

My thoughts are with all of you and your families this Christmas and lets see a new beginning in the new year 2017.

Just been informed my son is on a
suicide watch, apparently he is struggling to cope at the moment. He has had a
difficult year to cope with had a court case , which even though he was found
not guilty the parole board has requested all the statements from the officers
involved to be presented at the parole hearing . his probation officer went to
see him for only the 2cd time in two years and accused him of showing signs of
a personality disorder ,which he has since been examined and its been proved he
hasn’t . I complained about her to her boss and now she has written a negative
report about him for parole. He is coming up to 10 years inside in january 7and
a half years over tariff and it looks like they want to stitch him up again .
ive so had enough of these people , they don’t have a heart any of them .
prison officers can beat our loved ones , then charge them with assault and
when your family member proves in court the officers were the guilty ones and
he was the victim it means nothing , They just turn to the parole board and
probation to get their revenge . The bloody system is a joke , and as for them
all being independent bodies I find it hard to believe . So worried about my
son at the moment, he is a very strong man but they are really pushing him to
his limits . sorry for the rant everyone just needed to sound off im feeling a
bit stressed myself today

Adams Just to let yous know an ipp has just got release
from cat C..looks like things are improving

Zing Still
going to be excessively risk averse no acceptance that is the problem . No surprises here, when u all get happy its lip
service like i say they been saying things without any changes.

does
everyone know what administrative detension is?The secretary of state does have the power to release any ipp's and also even overturn a parole board decision

RamshawHe's
had an oral hearing. 5 minutes before evidence was presented. Basically
a letter directing release however board was having none of release
plans etc. Will hear in 14 days the outcome

Foster I'm hoping my partner will get released on paper but I haven't
heard of anyone yet

RamshawAnyone heard of ipps getting letter from secretary of state directing release prior to oral hearing???? He got 4 year tarriff and has served nearly 12 years.They had a date in may for paper work to be submitted however hearing just happened

ChaddockWell some one needs over rule it because it was all over the news.

Umm My oh was
beaten by poilce officers and was in hospital for two years he was very
sick then they put in jail and he had to go court and police officer had
to be present at the hearing he also
was found not guilty but he was recalled bk and the police get away with
it but our loved ones don't so not fair I really hope he gets better
soon and starts to heal hun I know how hard it is xxx much love

FosterWhen
I rang parole board they said they review everyone's case when it gets
to them and they decided on everyone's case weather they can be released
on paper or not they said some may need an oral hearing before release.I hope we hear more of ipps being released on paper as it's for all ipps not just recalls

CookeI
sincerely hope this is the case for your partner. If it is it means
that the release of over tariff IPPs is being done. Fingers crossed for
you..

ChaddockParole
probation the same trust me my brother did 11 years IPP 1 year44
day tariff got released June this year and recalled on July passed drug
alcohol did not re offend now he's got wait till January for Orel
hearing whilst they sit at home with
their families MPs lick my Arse and only so much solicitors can do on
legal aid some body in power needs to help get them out now they've
destroyed many IPPs and their families.

Umm got recalled and
didn't do nothing wrong for him to be put back and he still sitting in
jail after 2yrs and a half I really hope this parole board start letting
them go on paper and we see results happening it's so hard this
government need to really work there ass off to let dem go.

KilleenDifference
is though most IPP'S got lifed of on first jail sentences 2 strikers
been inside before (even tho a dnt agree with the way the treated) but
its total different sentence.